Mary Jo Foley has a very interesting post in which she describes an interview she had with Microsoft regarding the results early adopters have seen with Windows 7. The news thus far is incredibly positive, but the spin here, of course, is around application compatibility. And according to Microsoft, this just isn't the big deal it used to be. Assuming you don't mind just getting rid of those pesky incompatible apps.

The latest attempt to convince customers comes in the form of take-aways Microsoft officials have uncovered and are sharing publicly from some of the early Windows 7 enterprise deployments. Norm Judah, the Chief Technology Officer of Microsoft Services (the group that encompasses Microsoft Consulting Services, consumer support and commercial support) discussed some of these learnings and offered advice during an interview I had with him on December 7.

“The assessment of compatibility is turning out to be the most interesting part” of the Windows 7 deployment process, said Judah, whose team is helping shepherd a number of companies through the process. “In some cases, the remedies (for compatibility problems) are fairly simple,” he said. (Microsoft provided, via a press release, an example of an unnamed European petrochemical company which was able to fix Windows 7 compatibility problems with more than 1,000 custom apps written in Visual Basic by changing a library module that was common to all of those apps.)

“There’s also the question as to whether customers really need an (incompatible) application,” Judah said. When performing an evaluation, customers have a chance to figure out which apps are worth taking the trouble to try to fix vs. which can be “discarded,” he said. Judah cited as an example of an app that might be discardable as Lotus Notes… And no, I’m not kidding.

Discuss this Article 13

I just had to laugh when I saw the Lotus Notes part. Really, who still uses this?
Anyways, reading the rest of the article, I found it interesting that Microsoft is considering removing support for XP SP2 and Vista RTM. That's not entirely a bad idea, after-all most people should have updated Vista to at least SP1 (including the couple businesses using it). I wonder, though, how many people are using XP SP2; if it's still a lot, there may be good reason to continue supporting it, at least until more people transition to SP3 or Seven. Ultimately, this makes computers a bit more secure if people actually transition to the latest service packs, even though it may be tedious to install the latest service pack.

Sure sounds like the Windows 7 Debacle to me.
Paul and others made such a big stink about a hundred apps that did not work in Mac OS x 10.6.
Now we see reports of 1,000 apps that don't work right in Windows 7.

"Sure sounds like the Windows 7 Debacle to me.
Paul and others made such a big stink about a hundred apps that did not work in Mac OS x 10.6.
Now we see reports of 1,000 apps that don't work right in Windows 7. "
Too true, but then hypocrisy is par for the course around this blog. Snow Leopard was, according to Paul, a "debacle". Even funnier, various denizens of this blog and the Wininfo discussions compared Snow Leopard to -Vista-, as an example of a bad OS release! Of course, when Vista came out, the same people were extolling it as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
On Mary Jo's site, this bit is interesting,
"“There’s also the question as to whether customers really need an (incompatible) application,” Judah said. When performing an evaluation, customers have a chance to figure out which apps are worth taking the trouble to try to fix vs. which can be “discarded,” he said. Judah cited as an example of an app that might be discardable as Lotus Notes… And no, I’m not kidding."
Yah, just discard those pesky apps---that just happen to compete with Microsoft apps----and replace them with ones from Redmond. Uh-huh.

Sites like Paul's and Mary Jo's lack real insight into the corporate world. MS Sales types (Wae) drone on about ROI if you upgrade now.
The real world is so very different. For corporations like mine, we never went to Vista or Office 2007 after some very short testing almost 2 years ago. The application hurdles we faced then are still going to be there for the most part.
We have such a mix of stuff here, half a dozen SQL2000 servers, a single NT server in a VM that has static data that need to looked at once a year and needs to be kept for 3 more years. About 20 Windows 2000 servers. Probably at least a dozen applications that wont work with IE8 or Windows 7/Vista. All of it works fine today on XP. Most of our users are either VDI or use a Terminal Server. Of the few that have desktops I am going to take a wild guess and say most dont have the right CPU's to use XP mode.
We are going to upgrade our domain to 2008 R2, Exchange to 2010 from 2003 and probably go to Office 2010 before we cancel our Enterprise agreement next fall. Windows 7 may make it into our environment in 2011.

Paul I dont get your Tablet article?
Everyone knows Tablet PC's have been around for years from MS and they are not disputing it. Those devices however have only seen growth in specific industries and never really in the consumer world. Also for the most part the were just notebooks/laptops with a swivel screen.
The iPhone/iTouch has really brought touch to consumers in a big way. Maybe its the form factor that works so well, or the way touch is implemented on them. I think Windows 7 matches it, but on that form factor only a handful of apps are going to really make it shine. Give me a choice on a Notebook and I will use a keyboard to type vs screen. However something like the Kindle reader is perfect for touch on a Windows 7 PC that is touch.
An Apple tablet will be nothing more than a larger iTouch. Its default interface (if not only) interface will be touch. All applications that run on it will be touch enabled vs your Lenovo Notebook which is probably 90%-10% NON touch applications.
You are also starting to see other touch focused devices. That JooJoo/crunch pad device, some Adroid devices. Over the next two years it will be interesting to see what happens. Lots of things will happen with touch only slate type tablets and the cloud. Chrome OS is just another factor.
I could see netbooks being killed off and replaced by slate/tablet devices with apps designed for them. Traditional Laptops wont be replaced anytime soon.

Speaking of Windows 7 debacles, where's the news about the latest Windows 7 license debacle? The Family Pack is gone! MS has yanked it just in time for Christmas. Sorry for those wanting to buy it for a Christmas present to upgrade the home systems. Now they have to pay full price for each PC they upgrade.
We'll call this the MS tax.

concerning rr0de74@live.com...
Your company needs to get with the times... I know companies that are the same way but are biting the bullet and upgrading. They were going to wait till Vista SP2 was released but then found out what a car wreck that O/S is. Where this company ran into problems is that other companies they were doing business with were using newer applications and the converters don't always work as planned. So Windows 7 is in the horizon for June of next year along with office 2007 possibly 2010. My company *cough* is using Lotus Notes and not even a new version. Can you imagine the cost of migration to Outlook?
So when I say your company is behind the times it's because it is and its cheaper to keep up then try to jump a decade of transition...

Anyone else notice the clever partitioning of articles now?
Anything that might generate the least comment is now an "article" with, surprise, no comment capability. The "blog" now contains entries of riveting interest like
"Microsoft Services Get Businesses Up to Speed with Windows 7, Exchange Server 2010"
which is part of Paul's contract to parrot Microsoft press releases.
I wonder what the quota is?

I think its very funny that the resident Mac defenders are back on the attack once again, however I have a question. Why are you guys so desperate to defend Snow Leopard and Apple? What incentive do you guys defend by protecting a product and a corporation? If you really think your comments here are going to change anyone minds, don't waste your time. It just seems very odd that the same characters are always on a Windows site parrotting the same stuff in the Mac vs PC commercials over and over and over again. It's like having a Tea Party activist at the RNC convention trying to get people to switch.
Can't you guys come up with something new and original to say?
If Windows is really such a waste of your time, then why bother writing about it?
If Snow Leopard is really that good, Snow Leopard really aught to sell itself. It doesn't need anyone to defend it.
However, if you look at OS-X usage, Mac users aren't flocking to Snow Leopard. A good chunk of users are staying with Leopard. It seems both the issues with early versions Leopard and now with Snow Leopard are keeping a good chunk of Mac users on Leopard. Very interesting and amusing.
The reality is that both Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are at parity. Even stevens. In other words, its a whole new ball game. You can tout incompatibilities all ya want, but the reality is that the incompatibilities in Windows 7 are much smaller than the incompatibilites with Snow Leopard. All those Power PC users are left out to dry, yet I've heard many older PC's running Windows 7. The vast majority of users are experiencing seemless transitions. This has been documented by Mary Jo Foley, Ed Bott, and many others.
If a thousand apps are incompatibile, considering how many hundreds of thousands of apps are available for Windows, that's pretty darn good. Better than leaving a whole generation of 2006 era Power PC users completely stranded on Leopard. To me, that's a greater irresponsibility on Apple's part.
The fact of the matter is that business spending on new PC's are on the rise thanks to an aging technology base, decreasing cost of PC's, improvements with Windows 7, and Microsoft's virtualization technology driving the way.
The other fact of the matter is that businesses don't flock to a new OS. Businesses takes months of testing and analysis before jumping. Infact, Windows XP was out 2 years before businesses started mass adopting the OS in their corporate environments. I expect that we'll see the same thing happen in 2011.
If you guys want talk business, why in the name of technology is anyone running Windows 2000 servers? With Windows 2000 extended support about to expire on July 13th, 2010, shouldn't you guys be pushing folks to a more secured server OS? Especially like a year ago, before the support run's out? Exploits, older machines which use older power hungry processors, and downtime is costly and then running such an such an old OS is just asking for an exploit to be used.
Any responsible technology vendor would have moved and insisted to its clients, that they should moveto a more secured and modern server OS. Just staying stuck in the past, just to save a few bucks only makes you spend more money when you transition have to make the transition.
I think that's highly irresponsible of both the vendor and a business to stay on Windows 2000 or XP. That would be like Mac users holding on to Mac OS 9, 10.2 or 10.3 just to save a few bucks. Even the company I work for spent the better part of 2008 eliminating all Windows 2000 machines from all environments.
I really do suspect that a lot of these Mac guys on here are being compensated or pushed by Apple to push their point of view on here. That's really the only explanation that fits. When you eliminate all that's possible, whatever remains no matter how improbable must be the truth. If that is the case, that's really pathetic.

I've been testing Windows 7 in my business environment since January. Almost a full year now of hands-on testing. I have no applications in my corporate accounting group, hospital environment, or at our country club that are incompatible. If I did, I'd just use XP Mode or else look to upgrade the application, and for something mission critical, I'd delay the rollout of 7 until I determine what that alternative will be. It's called being an intelligent IT administrator.
It's stupid to still be running Lotus Notes (or Application X) when it's so far out of date, sure, but many many large businesses do, and you can't just say "dump it" on a whim. But which one of you idiots thinks that it won't be updated to become compatible? So why would anyone suggest dump it as a solution? Just wait until it's updated.
As for the Mac idiots, umm, it's great that you've got iLife and iWorks, but I don't see any of my business applications releasing Mac versions (or any of their top 5 competitors), so seriously... stfu about compatibility until you can actually work with, well, anything.

@subzero you are wrong about Snow Leopard adoption. Of course you dont provide any evidence, you know something like this....
http://www.macworld.com/article/142933/2009/09/snow_leopard_adoption.html
A quick google will give you many links saying Snow Leopard is being adopted faster than Leopard. I guess it was to much trouble?
The same is going on for 7 over Vista. However because of all of the discounts MS is giving out for 7, unit sales are up over Vista but revenue is down something like 18% for the same time period. When you are a software only company for the most part that happens.
Until you work in a particular place, making blatant statements like...
"why in the name of technology is anyone running Windows 2000 servers?" or "Exploits, older machines which use older power hungry processors, and downtime is costly and then running such an such an old OS is just asking for an exploit to be used." are just plain ignorant.
Those 2000 boxes are on a secure network/vlan with no internet access at all, and only a few users can access them, performing a function that will eventually out sourced because of PCI by requirements by the end of 2010. They were moved to VMware a few years ago so they are running on 2009 Dell servers. The cost to migrate to the new solution before the PCI compliance deadline is over 100K. The decision was made to move the cost into 2010 2 years in a row now because the current solution works just fine. Waiting does nothing but defer the cost and costs nothing to wait.
I hope you dont make decisions beyond what wallpaper you use on your home PC.

@goodthings2life please tell what business apps are you using that do not work with Mac's?
98% of NON MS applications we have updated in the last two years have web based client access. Even Sharepoint 2007 with SP2 now plays nice with NON-IE browsers. We are looking forward to Exchange 2010 to get rid of Outlook for all of our TS users and Mac Entourage users because OWA is good enough in 2010. We are even looking at Google Apps as a possible replacement for Exchange. We moved off of ISA server as a web proxy because it was limited in its support for Windows only clients, and bought an appliance that is OS agnostic in 2008. The Barracuda appliance is 10X more powerful and way more flexible.
There are no doubt some Windows only applications out there but most of the time there is an alternative, and as those Windows only apps get updated lots of them are becoming OS agnostic. We use Cisco presence and it works perfectly on a Mac with the current version. It did not a few versions ago.